| From: | Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SYNONYMs revisited |
| Date: | 2009-03-04 15:33:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20090304153315.GL25872@eddie |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:14:41AM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> SQL/MED does support foreign tables, which are basically synonyms for
> remote tables. Other than that, it has no real similarity to synonym
> behavior for other database objects such as views, functions, or local
> tables.
I didn't mean to suggest that SQL/MED on its own could be used to make
SYNONYMs, but rather that given SQL/MED, perhaps we could reconsider
some sort of CREATE SYNONYM functionality to go along with it. A major
argument against CREATE SYNONYM in the past was that we wouldn't be able
to create synonyms representing remote objects because we couldn't
access remote objects. With SQL/MED that's no longer the case, so
perhaps that argument no longer applies.
- Josh / eggyknap
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-03-04 15:37:14 | Re: building pg_dump doesn't work |
| Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2009-03-04 15:14:41 | Re: SYNONYMs revisited |